|
<br />house, a doghouse, outhouse, luxury house, or
<br />pancake house. CPAN will not change that.
<br />Second, the Daley administration is resist-
<br />ant to a citywide inclusionary housing program,
<br />either because it believes that some neighbor-
<br />hoods need any kind of development right now
<br />or because aldermanic allies of the administra-
<br />tion believe that affordable housing does not
<br />belong in their wards. Consequently, the density
<br />bonus program is currently limited to down-
<br />town. The ARO kicks in when city land is sold at
<br />a discount or involves city dollars (both of which
<br />are influenced by the local alderman), and CPAN
<br />lets the alderman and community groups deter-
<br />mine whether affordable housing will be part of
<br />new developments in particular wards.
<br />Rnally, the administratio[l is loathe to
<br />"force" density on city neighborhoods (although
<br />they have floated the idea of expanding the
<br />downtown density bonus program along certain
<br />transit lines and nodes). Thus, density is used
<br />as a generous bonus downtown (where it is
<br />more acceptable) and CPAN is used iJ:l the
<br />neighborhoods, typically without a density
<br />bonus. Such is the Chicago way. According to
<br />the city's Department of Housing, the Chicago
<br />way has produced over 1,200 affordable homes
<br />and commitments for $34 million in-lieu pay-
<br />ments between 2002 and 2006.
<br />
<br />COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES
<br />The Chicago way is unique, characterized by
<br />policies that are largely voluntary, incentive-
<br />based, and targeted for selective use in differ-
<br />ent parLS of the city. Other large dties have: 1)
<br />mandatory, citywide approaches; 2) manda-
<br />tory but targeted approaches; and 3) "volun-
<br />. tary," targeted approaches.
<br />
<br />Citywide, Mandatory lnclusionary Housing
<br />Ordinances
<br />The Denver, San Diego, and San Francisco
<br />inclusionary housing programs require any
<br />development of a specified size to include 10
<br />percent affordable housing, regardless of
<br />whether city finandng, city land, or a zoning
<br />change is involved. Denver requires 10 percent
<br />affordable housing in all developments with
<br />30 or more units. For ownership develop-
<br />ments, the 10 percent component is manda-
<br />tory. For rental developments (due to a
<br />Colorado state law and a Colorado State
<br />Supreme Court ruling that prohibits local ordi-
<br />nances that place limitations on rents) the 10
<br />percent component is voluntary. Denver's pro-
<br />gram has produced over 3,000 affordable
<br />units. San Diego and San Francisco both
<br />
<br />require a 10 percent affordable housing com-
<br />ponent in any development with 10 or more
<br />units. Both San Francisco and San Diego
<br />adopted "limited" inclusionary housing poli-
<br />des in the early 1990S and went citywide in
<br />2002 and 2003 respectively. The programs
<br />provide a clear, relatively predictable policy
<br />for the development community and a hous-
<br />ing policy geared to harness and benefit from
<br />all developments of lOOT more units.
<br />
<br />Mandatory Ordinance with Specific
<br />Applications
<br />Boston has a mandatory inclusionary develop-
<br />ment policy that requires 15 percent affordable
<br />housing in any development of 10 or more units
<br />that 1) receives assistance from the Boston
<br />Redevelopment Authority; 2) uses dty-owned
<br />land; or ~ receives a zoning change. Boston's
<br />policy exists by way of an executive order issued
<br />by Mayor Thomas Menino in 2000. The policy
<br />originally required 10 percent affordable hous-
<br />ing. Due to the success of the program, the city
<br />raised the affordable requirement to 15 percent.
<br />
<br />properties remain and over 200,000 homes
<br />have been created-the overwhelming major-
<br />ity of them affordable. The city's success at
<br />using city-owned property to rebuild neighbor-
<br />hoods, shore up its tax base, and create
<br />much-needed affordable housing has precipi-
<br />tated a need for viable new strategies for pri-
<br />vate land and in private developments.
<br />Inclusionary zoning is one housing tool,
<br />among many, now considered by the city.
<br />New York's inclusionary housing policy is
<br />determined by neither ordinance nor executive
<br />order, but rather the strategic employment of
<br />inclusionary housing policies on rezonings of
<br />specified sizes..For example, as the city rezones
<br />large parcels of industrial land to residential use
<br />at Hudson Yard (in Manhattan) and at
<br />Greenspoint-Williamsburg (in Brooklyn), devel-
<br />opers are encouraged to include affordable hous-
<br />ing. If they do, they receive a generous package
<br />of benefits: a 33 percent density bonus, a 20- to
<br />25-year property tax exemption (previously avail-
<br />able to market-rate developers but is now
<br />restricted to those who include affordable hous-
<br />
<br />The Daley administration believes In
<br />voluntary approaches using incentives to harness
<br />private-market activity and create affordable housing.
<br />
<br />Developers can pay a fee in lieu of including the
<br />affordable housing. The fee is paid to the
<br />. Inclusionary Development Fund. The fee is
<br />$200,000 per affordable unit (up from $97,000
<br />per unit) for rental developments. For ownership
<br />developments, the fee is $200,000 per afford-
<br />able unit or one half of the difference between
<br />the average market-rate price in the develop-
<br />ment and the affordable price, whichever is
<br />greater. According to the Boston Municipal
<br />Research Bureau, the policy produced 715 units
<br />of affordable housing and millions of dollars in
<br />affordable housing funds as of May 2006.
<br />Although the city's policy does not apply to all
<br />developments over a certain number of units (as
<br />in Denver, San Francisco, or San Diego), program
<br />administrators assert that a significant percent-
<br />age of new development falls under the purview
<br />of the Boston program due to the city's anti-
<br />quated zoning ordinance.
<br />
<br />Targeted Inclusiooery Zoning for Large
<br />Rezonings
<br />In the mid 1980S, New York City controlled
<br />over 10,000 city-owned vacant parcels or prop-
<br />erties. Today, fewer than 800 vacant. lots of
<br />
<br />iog on the rezonings), and access to public subsi-
<br />dies to help pay for the affordable units.
<br />According to the Pratt Centerfor Community
<br />Development, the rezonings will create more than
<br />7,000 affordable housing units over the next
<br />decade.
<br />Many areas of New York City may be sub-
<br />ject to large rezonings in the near future
<br />(inclUding sections of Jamaica, Sherman
<br />Creek, South Park Slope, Bedford-Stuyvesant,
<br />and Flushing), and community groups are
<br />committed to using Hudson Yard and
<br />Greenspoint-Williamsburg as precedent.
<br />Furthermore, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
<br />inch-lsionary zoning (in targeted rezonings) in
<br />parts of the city's touted 10-Year Housing Plan.
<br />It remains to be seen whether the city will use
<br />inclusionary policies (and how aggressively it
<br />will do so) in these other areas.
<br />
<br />DOES ''THE CHICAGO WAY" MEASURE UP?
<br />Chicago's downtown density bonus program
<br />and the affordable requirements ordinance are
<br />clear and predictable programs that appear to
<br />work for the development community. The
<br />downtown density bonus represents an innova-
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 3.07 205
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5
<br />
|